Negotiating the Nature and - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 18
About This Presentation
Title:

Negotiating the Nature and

Description:

With equity, transparency & honesty. Observing high standards of scholarship ... Higher Education Council for England (HEFCE) (2004) Centres for Excellence in Teaching ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:30
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 19
Provided by: georgela
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Negotiating the Nature and


1
Negotiating the Nature and Boundaries of a
Collaborative CETL
2
Aims of CIPeL
  • To produce interprofessional learning objects,
    learning activities assessment tools to address
    interprofessional capabilities
  • Research and develop pedagogic strategies
    models related to e-approaches to IPL
  • Disseminate engage internal and external
    stakeholders with e-approaches to achieving
    interprofessional capabilities.

3
Structure of CIPeL
Core Team
Secondees 2 Phd students Student interns
Service users SIG Critical friends
4
Researching the collaboration
  • Exploration of shared or collective understanding
    of the team
  • Meads Ashcroft (2005) framework used as a basis
    for a report/respond (RR) questionnaire
    (Stronach McClure, 1997)

5
Broad research questions
  • who do we need to work with now and in the
    future?
  • what kind of relationship do we want?
  • how do we expect the relationship to operate?
  • is our experience of the relationship
    satisfactory?
  • how well do organisational factors support the
    relationship?

6
Who do we need to work with now in the future?
  • New partners recognized
  • as having potential to
  • alter collaboration
  • Emphasis on team
  • cohesion planning to
  • avoid risks to the
  • collaboration
  • One another in team,
  • evaluators, students, full
  • professional range of
  • staff, service users,
  • practitioners, partner
  • Institution, other CETLs
  • national/international
  • colleagues

7
What kind of relationship do we want?
  • Fosters social presence of members
  • Built on trust mutual respect
  • Characterised by reflexivity
  • Regular face-to-face contact, shared
    responsibility a team approach
  • Capitalises on individual strengths
  • Beneficial to both institutions
  • Fosters innovation

8
How do we expect the relationship to operate?
  • Regular communication - use of technology
  • Defined areas of responsibility, within a
    framework of objectives regular review
  • Shared objectives between team members????
  • With equity, transparency honesty
  • Observing high standards of scholarship
  • In an informed way by understanding how to make
    the collaboration work

9
Is our experience of the relationship
satisfactory?
  • Social presence good but collaborative working
    threatened by other work commitments
  • Logistics impede collaboration
  • Collaboration slowed when policies in two
    institutions need to be negotiated -
    collaboration between individuals can speed
    things up
  • Team members playing to their strengths
  • Allowed increased insight understanding of
    organisational structures, policies procedures,
    change culture, curriculum approaches

10
How well do organisational factors support the
relationship?
  • They do not always support collaboration.. but
  • Corporate Partnership Group mechanism
  • Senior management support evident
  • Target influential individuals
  • Benefit from selecting best bits from policies in
    either institution
  • Looser structures greater flexibility allow
    greater innovation possibly greater potential
    to promote institutional change

11
Kezars Stages of Collaboration (2005)
  • 1 building commitment involves
  • A set of values about collaborative work,
    external pressure learning about benefits of
    collaboration
  • 2 commitment depends on
  • Senior management support, rethinking
    institutional mission, networks leadership that
    push collaboration
  • 3 sustaining involves
  • Integrating structures redesigning processes
    to facilitate collaboration, rewarding
    collaborators creating networks to overcome
    barriers resistance to new processes and
    structures

12
The CETL Vision
  • vibrant, dynamic entities with a visible
  • presence in their own institution(s),
  • engaging directly purposively with student
  • learning and serving as a catalyst for
  • change (HEFCE, p.5)

13
Excellence and Collaboration?
  • Teaching excellence - a contested concept
    (Skelton, 2004)
  • associated with individuals each of whom come
    with their
  • own expertise, career aspirations reputations
    (Watson
  • Maddison, 2005)
  • Is the excellence bestowed upon us something that
    we can claim equally?
  • Does this create tensions between individual
    aspirations collaboration?

14
Collaboration and Competition?
  • Collaboration as a means of mitigating potential
    competition (Becher Trowler, 2001)
  • Does collaboration hold greater potential that
    individualistic goals?
  • Do research reputations complicate collaboration?
  • Do we as collaborative partners have something to
    offer one another that might make us sustainable?

15
Beware!!!
Collaboration threatens to undermine the
singularity of institutional identity - creates
tension between reaping the rewards (most often
financial) of working with collaborative partners
and promoting ones own institutional standing
Forces that prompt institutional distinctiveness
independent identity cannot be underestimated
(Kong, 2003)
16
Looking to the future
  • Need to acknowledge threats
  • Need to see progress on Kezars stages of
    collaboration as provisional
  • Need to be reflexive about how new partners might
    impact on alter collaboration

17
Looking to the future
  • Need to consider sustainability plan sooner
    rather than later
  • Need to focus on our achievements and work to
    minimize risks to our
  • collaboration
  • Need to sustain
  • relationships

Excellence collaboration go hand in hand if
you are determined enough
18
References
  • Becher, T. Trowler, P. R. (2001) Academic Tribes
    and Territories. 2nd Edition.
  • Buckingham, SRHE and Open University.
  • Higher Education Council for England (HEFCE)
    (2004) Centres for Excellence in Teaching
  • and Learning Invitation to bid for funds. HEFCE
  • Kezar, A. (2005) Redesigning for Collaboration
    Within Higher Education Institutions An
  • Exploration into the Developmental Process.
    Research in Higher Education, 46(7), pp.
  • 831-860.
  • Kong, L. (2003) People, politics, policy the
    (im)possibilities of institutional
    collaborations.
  • Environment and Planning, 35, pp. 1143-1150.
  • Meads, G. Ashcroft, J (2005) The Case for
    Interprofessional Collaboration in Health and
  • Social Care. London. Blackwell Science and CAIPE.
  • Skelton, A. (2004) Understanding teaching
    excellence in higher education a critical
  • evaluation of the National Teaching Fellowships
    Scheme. Studies in Higher Education,
  • 29(4), pp. 451-468.
  • Stronach, I. McClure, M. (1997) Educational
    Research Undone. Buckingham, Open
  • University.
  • Watson D. Maddison, E. (2005) Managing
    Institutional Self-Study. Buckingham, Open
  • University.
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com